This week’s Economist, the respected London newspaper, includes a report on the trip abroad made by Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for the coming US presidential election. Mr Romney did not achieve great results on the trip. In fact, the report was titled Gaffes And Choices. What struck me most, however, was the candidate’s attitude towards the media.

“Nor is it terribly impressive,” said The Economist, “to refuse to answer more than three press questions on the whole trip while your media people tell disgruntled hacks that they can ‘kiss my ass’.”

The questions limitation was surprising, betraying a lack of self-confidence by the Republican. For the norm is that politicians depend to a large extent on the media to carry their views to the electorate.

Billboards, spot adverts on TV, adverts in the press plus personal events are part of the projection.

The most important element of projection, however, is to pass on your message and vision to the people through the media.

For that purpose politicians hire top-notch aides who are not simply good at spin but who can mobilise the media to report their candidate’s views, even when these are hardly earth shaking.

The President and candidates with the necessary wherewithal even use planes and buses with representatives of the main media accompanying them.

Perhaps Mr Romney’s choice was part of his Romneyshambles, as some critics unkindly dubbed his trip abroad.

One wonders what such critics would say were they to comment on the political scene as it has developed in Malta.

Over here the Prime Minister and his merry men and women have taken to refusing to answer questions on delicate issues, such as the real Mistra story, or to be downright impolite and walk by journalists ignoring the questions they put as part of their job.

Is it a growing loss of self-confidence, leading to dependency on recorded Sunday sessions where there are no journalists to prick and probe? Or is it a worse case of growing arrogance?

It is probably a touch of both.

This attitude is also an insult to media people. Throughout the year they are regularly summoned to some press conference or other, not infrequently called to attend with urgency.

Doing that but refusing to answer questions that do not suit your particular design, or to deliberately not answer questions at all is to suggest that media people are viewed as prostitutes, to be used at the pleasure of politicians.

The treatment goes further. Ministers, following the PM’s example, have taken to not answering written questions sent to them. They do so not only in respect of the committed newspapers on the side of the Opposition.

They do it also in respect of The Times, MaltaToday and Independent stables. The clear message the Prime Minister and his team are transmitting is that they do not hold the media in high regard, perhaps because the uncommitted element refuse to do their bidding.

That is a bad mistake. An unusual PNGonzishambles, if you like. The media sector has made great strides in recent years.

Not only in composition and technically, but also in the quality of the human resources that staff the various newspapers and broadcasting stations. Media owners have also progressed. Today there is practically total emphasis on treating facts as sacred and reporting all news objectively.

That is complemented by extensive interpretive reporting and a plethora of columnists always ready to give their views on events as they unfold, or as they predict them.

More than ever the media is an important estate to be treated with respect, even as it changes with that part of it which is online adding a new dimension, reporting and commenting on the news as it happens.

Politicians need the media more than the media need them, for with effort and determination there are always challenging stories beyond the political divide.

If the Prime Minister continues to lead his colleagues in practically insulting the media, he might live to regret it.